[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8982-8984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5206]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-440]


The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.; Notice of 
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, 
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and 
Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-58, issued to The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al. 
(the licensee), for operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plan, Unit 1, 
located in Lake County, Ohio.
    The proposed amendment would revise the licensing basis as 
described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report to allow the drywell 
personnel airlock shield doors to be opened during plant startup and 
shutdown (Operational Conditions 1, 2, and 3) until the end of 
Operating Cycle 6.
    The licensee has requested that the review be handled as an exigent 
amendment to support restart following the end of the current fifth 
refueling outage. On February 9, 1996, the licensee determined that 
opening the shield doors at power was a condition outside the original 
design basis of the facility.
    The licensee met with the staff on February 15, 1996, completed 
engineering analyses, and prepared the request for license amendment in 
a timely fashion and submitted the request on February 27, 1996. Review 
of this amendment request will ensure that processing of the amendment 
will not be the sole item restraining plan restart from the current 
refueling outage, which is currently scheduled for March 25, 1996. Such 
a restraint would result in a costly extension to the outage with no 
corresponding benefit to safety.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As 
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:

    1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    An assessment was made of functionality given occurrence of the 
loads imposed on the shield doors. This assessment involves the 
620'-6'' steel platform, the monorail suspension structure and the 
shield doors themselves. Although certain structural members of the 
620'-6'' platform exceed the design basis acceptance criteria, these 
members were found to be acceptable when reviewed for functionality 
using alternate acceptance criteria. This demonstrates that the 
various supported systems and components that are important to 
safety will remain OPERABLE (for Technical Specification systems) or 
functional (for non-Technical Specification systems, structures and 
components). Even if the 3/4 inch tie rod (which provides lateral 
stability) and the left support bracket (a vertical load bearing 
member) were assumed to be failed, the shield doors would remain in 
a upright position and not fall. The monorail suspension structure 
and shield doors do not provide support to other systems. There are 
no interferences, and opening the shield doors has no effect on 
other systems. Therefore, there will be no increase in the 
probability of an accident due to the monorail suspension structure 
or shield doors, with the doors placed in the open position during 
Operational Conditions 1, 2, and 3.
    The primary purpose of the shield doors is to mitigate radiation 
streaming from the Drywell through the Personnel Airlock into the 
adjacent areas of the Containment, to maintain doses to personnel 
working inside containment ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable). 
Opening the doors during power operation will have no effect on the 
postulated accident source term, and the shield doors do not provide 
a barrier against fission products. Therefore, allowing the shield 
doors to be opened during plant startup and shutdown while in 
Operational Conditions 1, 2, or 3 will also not increase the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the USAR.
    Based on the above, the proposed changes do not significantly 
increase the probability or the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not involve physical modifications to 
the plant. There are no interferences with piping or other system 
components when the doors are placed in the open position during 
Operational Conditions 1, 2, or 3. Given the initiating events 
postulated for the various load combinations, non result in a new 
type of accident. The increase in radiation levels in the immediate 
vicinity of the open shield doors with the plant at power was 
verified to have no effect on the qualification and operation of 
systems, structures, or components important to safety. Since the 
platform and the monorail suspension structure will continue to 
provide support for the shield doors, i.e., the doors will not fall 
from the support structure, no new initiators of accidents are 
introduced.
    The 620'-6'' platform will continue to function with the shield 
doors open. The equipment supported by the platform will continue to 
perform their safety related design functions. Although components 
of the platform and the monorail suspension structure exceed design 
basis acceptance criteria, analyses have shown that, based on a 
functional assessment, the monorail suspension structure will 
continue to function and the doors will remain upright. With no 
additional loads imposed on other equipment and the continued 
functioning of the monorail suspension structure, there will be no 
``different'' accidents, since there will be no change, degradation, 
or prevention of actions described or assumed in any analyzed 
accident. The radiological consequences and the fission product 
barriers are not affected.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The NRC has accepted the Perry structural steel design (Safety 
Evaluation Report, 

[[Page 8983]]
NUREG-0887) based on the Structural Acceptance Criteria in Standard 
Review Plan Section 3.8.3. Analyses were subsequently performed 
considering the shield doors to be in the open position during plant 
operation. Several members and connections of the 620'-6'' platform 
and monorail suspension structure exceed the allowable stresses 
based on those acceptance criteria, and therefore a determination 
was made under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 that there was a 
slight reduction in the margin of safety. However, as described 
below, the proposed change has been reviewed and determined not to 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, as discussed 
in 10 CFR 50.92.
    Those members which had exceeded the design basis allowables 
were found to meet the Functional Evaluation acceptance criteria. 
This demonstrated functionality of the platform and the monorail 
structure; i.e., the platform would continue to support systems, 
structures, and components (SSCs) important to safety, the SSCs 
would remain functional, and the shield doors would not fall down. 
Analytical conservatisms within the Functional Evaluations remain to 
provide adequate assurance of continued function of the affected 
SSCs.
    Placing the shield doors in the open position during Operational 
Conditions 1, 2, or 3 is not inconsistent with the guidelines of the 
Technical Specifications for High Radiation Areas and the Radiation 
Protection Program. The open shield doors will not affect 
radiological limiting conditions or action limits for plant 
effluents as described in the Technical Specifications or Operating 
License. It does not affect the radiological bases as described in 
the Technical Specifications or Operating License. It does not 
affect the margin of radiological safety. The offsite radiation 
doses to members of the public are not increased.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 15 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 15-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely 
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
the 15-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments received. 
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal 
Register a notice of issuance. The Commission expects that the need to 
take this action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules Review and 
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be 
delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By March 18, 1996, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility 
operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding 
must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene 
shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice 
for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is 
available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street, 
Perry, Ohio. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to 
intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the 
Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on 
the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an 
appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the 
Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition 
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of 
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person 
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been 
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of 
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy 
the specificity requirements described above.
    Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to 
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions 
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must 
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a 
brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise 
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the 
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references 
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those 
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material 
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within 
the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be 
one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these 
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be 
permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing, including the opportunity to 

[[Page 8984]]
present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
    If the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day 
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is 
requested, the final determination will serve to decide when the 
hearing is held.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves 
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place 
before the issuance of any amendment.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services 
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above 
date. Where petitioners are filed during the last 10 days of the notice 
period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the 
Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 
284-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator 
should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following 
message addressed to Gail H. Marcus: petitioner's name and telephone 
number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition 
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Jay E. Silberg, 
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20037, attorney for the licensee.
    Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the 
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the 
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated February 27, 1996, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local 
public document room, located at the Perry Public Library, 3753 Main 
Street, Perry, Ohio.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of February 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Linda L. Gundrum,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-5206 Filed 3-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M